Intellectual Property and Copyright

During the lecture for Media Law and Ethics we looked at the legislation and ethics regarding intellectual property and copyright in Australia.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) defines plagiarism as follows:

Plagiarism offends the values of honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others. It can occur in many ways, including (but not limited to): when secondary sources are relied on too heavily; when material from wire services is fused with the work of staff reporters; because of the ease with which words can be 'cut' and 'pasted' by computer; and when the words of a public relations copywriter are reproduced from a press release verbatim without attribution to the source.
 - MEAA's Ethics Review Committee (1996)

It's important when discussing copyright and intellectual property to consider both the legal and ethical ramifications.

In Australia, legally, a person does not own an idea but the product of an idea. That is to say that even if you were to think of something, if you do not create anything from that idea then you cannot sue somebody else for stealing your idea. However, if you actually create something from an idea then it is automatically covered by copyright, even if you do not explicitly state that it is copyrighted, and remains copyrighted for 70 years after your death. In saying that, it is necessary to use moral judgement when creating content. I am not trying to justify stealing another person's ideas, creating something then going "Well, that's just too bad for you because I made something first so I am legally in the clear" because that is morally wrong. Just because you can do something and legally get away with it, that doesn't mean that you should. As stated by the MEAA, it is a matter of respect for the rights of others, if you steal other people's ideas then you are disrespecting them. Now, morality regarding intellectual property is complicated because sometimes the line is blurry about who had an idea first but that certainly does not justify removing the line altogether.

Technological advancements such as the internet have made plagiarism even more prevalent because of the overwhelming amount of content created daily and the ease with which it is possible to access that content. The thing is, because the internet is a public domain, there are problems with the concept of implied permission and express permission. Implied permission is fairly straightforward in concept, a person assumes that content is free to be used either because of how it is published or being "printer friendly" or free to "share". As a result, content is sometimes used without attribution and the argument that many people use to counter claims of plagiarism is "well, I thought that it was free to use because it didn't say that it wasn't." That does not make it okay. It is always safer to attribute credit for any work that is not your own rather than just claiming it as your own work or not crediting anybody. Express permission is when a person states that their content can be used as long as credit is attributed to them. There is no grey area as far as express permission is concerned.